Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's amendment/arguments filed on 10/30/25 as being acknowledged and entered. By this amendment claims 1-10 and 16-20 are canceled, and claims 11-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification, nor the drawings describe how the liquid diffuser is dispensed into the cavity. The paragraphs cited by applicant do not teach the act of pouring the liquid diffuser mater.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffy et al. (US PGPub 2013/024887) in view of Shedletsky (US PGPub 2012/0170284), and Reeswinkel et al. (US PGPub 2019/0189855).
Claim 11: Coffy teaches a method comprising: attaching a glass substrate (24) to a light sensitive surface (9) of an optical sensor die (6) (Fig. 9); performing a film assisted transfer molding process [0046-0050] to provide an epoxy molding compound (23,25) that laterally surrounds the optical sensor die and the glass substrate, wherein the epoxy molding compound defines a cavity over the glass substrate [0034-0036, 0053]; dispensing a diffuser material (41) in the cavity (40) onto the glass substrate that is positioned over the optical sensor die. Coffy does not teach pouring a liquid diffuser and curing the liquid diffuser material to form a reflow-stable optical diffuser. Shedletsky teaches (Fig. 14) dispensing a liquid diffuser material in a cavity on a glass substrate (14) and curing the liquid diffuser material to form a reflow-stable optical diffuser [0072, 0075] as a common manufacturing method as taught by and further evidenced by (2010/0155763, 2009/0179213). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method taught by Coffy to have included the steps of dispensing a liquid diffuser and heat curing it to form an appropriate diffuser as is common in the art and taught by the references listed.. Coffy and Shedletsky do not teach the film assisted transfer molding process with a foil that provides a non-adhesive layer. Reeswinkel teaches an optical sensor die encapsulated using a film assisted transfer molding process with a foil that provides a non-adhesive layer as being known in the art of semiconductor manufacturing (Fig. 4) [0084, 0109]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method taught by Coffy and Chow to have used a non-adhesive foil in the film assisted transfer process as it is well known in the art as taught by Reeswinkel.
Claim 12: Chow teaches providing a liquid diffuser material includes dispensing an epoxy resin material into the cavity (Col. 4 lines 50-67).
Claim 15: Coffy teaches [0054] the glass substrate serves as a carrier for one or more optical filter.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffy et al. (US PGPub 2013/024887) in view of Shedletsky (US PGPub 2012/0170284), and Reeswinkel et al. (US PGPub 2019/0189855), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Enichlmair et al. (EP3032583).
Regarding claim 13, as described above, Coffy, Reeswinkel, and Chow substantially read on the invention as claimed, except Coffy, Reeswinkel, and Chow do not teach a liquid diffuser material includes dispensing a silicone material into the cavity. Enichlmair teaches a liquid diffuser material includes dispensing a silicone material into the cavity [0048] as known epoxy resin substitution [0048]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute one know element for another known element resulting in the predictable result of forming a sensor cover (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffy et al. (US PGPub 2013/024887) in view of Shedletsky (US PGPub 2012/0170284), and Reeswinkel et al. (US PGPub 2019/0189855), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Dross et al. (WO2014/147505).
Regarding claim 14, as described above, Coffy, Reeswinkel, and Chow substantially read on the invention as claimed, except Coffy, Reeswinkel, and Chow do not teach sputtering a metal mask on the glass substrate to define an optical aperture. Dross teaches sputtering a metal mask on the glass substrate to define an optical aperture in an optical device (Page 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method taught by Coffy, Reeswinkel, and Chow to have used a sputtered metal mask as it is known in the art as taught by Dross.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 5712721705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814